Special Standing Committee

[Mrs. Marion Roe in the Chair]

Adoption and Children Bill

Marion Roe: I understand that there were complaints this morning about the heating. Action was taken during the lunch break, and the heating is now pumping out hot air—just as hon. Members probably will this afternoon. I hope that the problem has been rectified, but we shall take it up with the authorities to make sure that the Room is warmer in the mornings.Clause 4 Assessments etc. for adoption support services

Clause 4 - Assessments etc. for adoption support services

Jonathan Djanogly: I beg to move amendment No. 73, in page 5, line 18, after 'authority', insert
'and they will have a parallel duty along with the local authority to provide the necessary service.'.

Marion Roe: With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 172, in page 5, line 18, after 'authority', insert
'and they will have a parallel duty along with the local authority to provide any relevant support services'.
 No. 145, in page 5, line 18, after 'authority', insert 
'and the latter bodies and authorities will have a duty to make provision of all relevant services.'.
 No. 144, in page 5, line 23, leave out from 'requested' to end of line 24 and insert 
'has a duty to comply with the request and make provision of all relevant services'.
 No. 183, in page 5, line 23, leave out from 'request' to end of line 24.

Jonathan Djanogly: After lunch, it is better to have cold air; we want the hot air in the morning.
 We welcome the general idea behind subsection (9) and the proposals for joined-up thinking, which are intended to get the various agencies to work and, I hope, think together. However, practice tells many members of the Committee—whether, like me, they worked on social services committees, or whether they were social workers—that some authorities are better than others at working with other agencies. Some are better at providing services, some are better at providing particular services and some work better among their own than with others. One often finds that agencies tend to provide an excellent service for their own people—some agencies are more parochial than others. One cannot assume that the various health, education or social services across the country will be of the same standard.

Henry Bellingham: My hon. Friend talks about agencies, but is he using the term in the wider sense? In discussing the Bill, we have normally referred to public sector organisations as authorities and to charitable or semi-voluntary organisations as agencies. I would be grateful if he could clarify that point.

Jonathan Djanogly: I thank my hon. Friend. I have been using the word in the wider sense, and ''bodies'' would perhaps be more appropriate.
 The different bodies will provide different levels of services. To that extent, subsections (9) and (11) need strengthening if we are to get people to work together and to deliver the same sort of service at the same time. 
 The way in which the various bodies provide their services is governed by many different items of legislation, and there is a lot of room for conflict and interpretation when it comes to getting them to deliver a unified service. That is not a new problem, but it certainly is a problem. At the same time, the Bill puts the local authority in the lead role. The authority will have the best picture of the overall adoption service, so it is right that it should take the lead role. 
 We feel that the Bill does not give enough strength to the new system. Given the various pieces of legislation, confusion could reign. Unfortunately, there could be another field day for lawyers in determining what legislation takes priority. The amendments are probing. They would add some flesh to the provisions and show how they would work in practice. 
 The explanatory notes suggest that the Government will issue guidance to the various bodies, with the intention that the local authority will receive an overview of the package of services. It will then be able to decide how best to proceed. Neither the Bill nor the explanatory notes provide any details, however. It would help if the Minister explained how she intends the procedures to work. The circumstances are not entirely new. To a degree, all the bodies currently have to work together, but many examples could be given of how they have not done so.

Julian Brazier: There is an interesting parallel with services children. Children of members of the armed forces are another group of people who use local authorities in a similar way. For four and a half years, the Government have had an excellent initiative to try better to co-ordinate provision, but it has borne almost no fruit as there is a lack of a statutory duty such as that for which my hon. Friend rightly calls.

Jonathan Djanogly: I thank my hon. Friend for that extremely valid example. I ask the Minister to flesh out how the procedure is likely to work. How will it be varied from what we now have, which everyone agrees needs improvement?
 When a request has been made, what mechanisms would come into operation? Nothing that we have received to date has told us how long, for instance, the various bodies would need to respond. The Bill might suggest that they should work in a concerted fashion, but it would be unfortunate if one body took that to mean a week and another took it to mean six months. It would be important for timing to be tied in. 
 What if one body does not respond? We assume that they will all play ball, but many hon. Members will know that that does not always happen. What if the assessment of one body conflicted with that of another? We are not talking about distinct scientific practice, but the difference between descriptions of the work of social workers, education people and health workers. They will often work together with similar disciplines, but who is to decide whose assessment will take priority in the event of conflicting views? How would those different views be sorted out? What would the timing implications be? 
 Should not the applicant have some form of redress within the system? An oft-repeated complaints by children or prospective adoptive parents involved in the adoption system is that they feel that they are not given an adequate hearing. Would they have rights to go to the panel to be created under clause 12? Such rights are not mentioned in the explanatory notes or the Bill, but surely it would be appropriate for people to have some say? If they did not feel that they were adequately listened to, they could seek some form of redress through an independent review. Outside parties could come in and take a decision. 
 I come to the core question behind the amendment. What is the point of such valid new provisions if the bodies concerned are not under a duty to provide services? Even if they believe that they should provide services, they may decide not to. They may decide not to provide them at the same time as one another or in a concerted fashion. 
 The importance of the clause will lie in the detail, and the same is true of many others. The subject has not been satisfactorily dealt with, and there are problems, so I would be grateful for the Minister's further explanation.

Hilton Dawson: There is much sense in what the hon. Gentleman has said, and in the amendment. A Government who are noted for their commitment to what works and to joined-up government should take such issues on board. In my experience, to some extent, the ability of public, voluntary and private sector bodies to work together can make a policy work to the great benefit of children and their families, or, it is sad to say, work actively against that.
 We have a great reforming Government who are making tremendous improvements to public services, of which the Bill is only one aspect. However, we have to get to grips with organisational inertia, boundaries and bureaucratic structures. The way in which organisations put themselves together, see themselves and operate works against the best interests not only of well thought out policy, but of children, young people and their families. I would like a major shake-„up. There should be children's departments at local level, and a range of organisations charged with meeting children's needs should be brought together in a framework that stresses the importance of corporate parenting and the participation of young people. I will not stray into such crucial aspects of citizenship in my short speech. 
 If the Bill is to work well—if all the Government's good intentions to improve adoption services and the support of adopted young people and children and adoptive families are to work—we must ensure that all the organisations involved work clearly together on a positive agenda that puts children's needs first, and way ahead of organisational imperatives or bureaucratic structures. 
 I do not know whether the amendments will prove acceptable to the Minister but I support the spirit in which they were tabled. The Government need to get a grip on this important issue.

Henry Bellingham: I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) said, because he has a great deal of experience and he hit the nail bang on the head. The amendments are designed to ensure that the different bodies and authorities act in a co-ordinated manner in the interests of the child, which are paramount.
 When he moved the amendments, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) made it clear that one sees different standards of service up and down the country. All too often, there is what is now described as a postcode lottery. A person living in one part of the country may receive a very good service from a branch of the public service, while in another part of the country they would not. It is vital that one branch of the local public services knows what the other is doing. 
 When it comes to ensuring that everything possible is done for children, particularly in the case of adoption, it is vital that the different bodies know what the others are up to. We had an important example of that in Norfolk recently with the Lauren Wright case. I do not want to digress, but the matter is relevant to what we are trying to achieve with the amendments. The main body involved in that case was the local education authority of the school concerned. The health service was involved as well, because Lauren was referred to a consultant paediatrician. The police were also involved, because the case was referred to them, and social services were involved. 
 The bottom line is that none of those services killed poor Lauren—it was her stepmother. Blame has been attached to various people who worked on Lauren's case in an unfair and unjust manner. A whole day of the Victoria Climbie inquiry will be devoted to the case, and I hope that it will result in a determined effort by the Government to ensure that there is proper co-ordination between services. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon was right. He examined the explanatory notes, which state that there should be 
''an overview of the package of services being provided''.{**W4**} 
The package of services means those provided not only by social services, but by the education service and other bodies such as the health authority. He was right to point out that if we do not get this right, there will be a lot of confusion. Failure to do so could result in a field day for lawyers in interpreting exactly what the two subsections mean. 
 Furthermore, as the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre pointed out, it is important to ask what will happen when the different bodies do not provide the services that they are meant to. What recourse will parents or children have if those services that have been promised or offered are not provided? That may happen for a variety of reasons, such as some confusion caused by the clause. 
 I would like the Minister carefully to examine that point. The Opposition are very concerned and we are minded to push the amendments to a vote if the Minister is not able to give us a satisfactory answer. The issue is fundamental—there is no point in having a clause that refers to a package of services, an overview of those services and provision of those services unless we know that they will be delivered on the ground. 
 Why do the notes on the clause, rather than the Bill itself, mention the issuing of guidance and directions? Time and again in this Bill we come across mention of regulations, of guidance and of directions, yet we do not know what they—in this case, the guidance—will be. 
 I understand that the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) is going to talk about amendment No. 172 in a moment, but I should like to mention amendment No. 183, which, along with amendment No. 144, refers to refer to subsection (11), which says: 
''A local authority whose help is so requested must comply with the request''.{**W4**} 
That is fine. I am happy with it so far, but the subsection goes on to add: 
''if it is consistent with the exercise of their functions.''
 ''If'' is not good enough. There are too many ''ifs'' in this Bill and too many ''maybes'', ''perhapses'', ''coulds'' and ''mights''. If we are keen for the local authority to provide the services and the help that might be requested, we should not qualify it. That turns a positive subsection into a very airy-fairy one, which might be regarded by some as entirely negative. I hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy us or we shall feel obliged to press the amendment to a vote.

Sandra Gidley: I apologise for having been absent at the start of the sitting, Mrs. Roe.
 The Liberal Democrats have so far failed in our bid to amend clause 4 in a way with which we are happy. I entered politics in a spirit of optimism and I shall go on hoping. The amendments highlight another area that a number of the people who made submissions have seen as problematic. It is highly likely that we shall have to address how to deal with a proportion of the children who will require support services from the health authority, the primary care trust or the local education authority. Social services assessment might begin to identify those, but all that the social services department would have to do would be to notify the relevant authority. That does not go far enough, because there is no onus on that authority to provide further assessments, let alone to provide further support services. One could argue, to an extent as devil's advocate, that the local authority might be well equipped to provide the social services assessment. A joined-up council—although that is a buzz word, I have yet to see any form of joined-up government—could provide an assessment of educational needs. However, the Bill does not make it clear whether there is an onus on the council to provide an LEA assessment, even though the same council has to provide the social services assessment. Perhaps the Minister will clarify whether that makes matters easier or more difficult. 
 A local council is not in a position to assess health needs fully. That can be done only under the guidance of the relevant primary care trust. The Bill is therefore lacking, in that it deals only with assessment of part of what can be a very complex picture. Many agencies have highlighted that problem. We should listen to them, because they deal with the adoption system every day; they are much better placed than most of us to identify problems, and they have identified this as a problem in the Bill. 
 We have already lost the opportunity to guarantee that identified social service support will be provided. However, in a perverse way, that makes it a less onerous task to change clause 4 so that proper assessments will be provided for the children. The amendments, unfortunately, do not make the provision of support services compulsory. However, an adoption has a far greater chance of success if all needs are fully identified and supported at the beginning of the process. Then everybody can enter into an adoption with their eyes wide open, knowing exactly what the problems are and what support they will receive.

Kevin Brennan: Amendment No. 73 has been tabled by a number of hon. Members. The Committee must forgive me because I have trouble with the pronunciation of some of these English constituencies, but they include the hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), for Huntingdon, and for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). Oh, and it was also tabled by the rather more pronouncable hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). As I considered it and the other amendments, it occurred to me that they refer to primary care trusts and local health authorities.
 I apologise to the Minister for not having raised this matter earlier. I should have done so, and perhaps there is a simple answer, but I have only just noticed it in the amendment. In Wales there are no PCTs. There are local health groups, which are to be changed into local health boards. Health authorities are soon to be abolished and their responsibilities transferred to the National Assembly. The Minister might not have an immediate answer, but I wonder whether she can reassure me that that discrepancy is covered by a catch-all clause somewhere in the Bill.

Julian Brazier: It is worth trekking back to what the clause, which we strongly support, is trying to do. We want to put some teeth into it so that it is meaningful, rather than just expressing a wish. I am risking arousing the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw), the statistics show that children who have been in care are disproportionately likely to become clients of the bodies listed in the clause. They are more likely to have special needs in schooling, to be consumers of mental health services and to have many other needs. We are dealing with a grave area, which was touched on repeatedly during the first phase of our deliberations.
 I should like to elaborate on the parallel example that I gave, to show why good intentions supported by a lot of effort by Ministers are likely to fail without statutory backing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon made clear, without either the amendment or something in the same ballpark, the clause will not give proper statutory backing. 
 The parallel group that I mentioned were children of members of the armed forces. Because, typically, they move very frequently, they tend to find themselves at the bottom of every waiting list. I moved 14 times during my 18 years of childhood—that is not untypical for an Army child. The child of a member of the armed forces may who want to go to the dentist, or his wife may want to see a gynaecologist for whom there is a nine-month waiting list, but the husband may be moved six months before they reaches the top of the list. Whatever happens, they are a disadvantaged group. 
 I do not want to try your patience too far on this, Mrs. Roe. The crucial point is that it is a problem. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who, when he was Minister for the Armed Forces, picked up and ran with this issue within weeks of taking over four and a half years ago. In doing so, he brought all the various agencies together; a taskforce is dealing with the issue and has repeatedly identified the problems. I am sorry to report that there has been almost no progress. At least that was the case the last time that I spoke to the army family federations and other bodies. That is why we tabled the amendments. 
 Unless we put some statutory teeth into the clause for the benefit of what is, by any standards, an even more disadvantaged group than the children and members of the armed forces, it will remain a piece of well-directed and well-intentioned wishful thinking, but little else.

Jacqui Smith: The clause and the amendments deal with the important issue of how we ensure that when children and families have a need for a range of services provided from different authorities or agencies, they are appropriately joined-up and those support services are provided. That is an aspiration with which I totally concur.
 For some of the reasons that we debated this morning, the amendments are misguided and miss the point, but there is no disagreement between members of the Committee about the importance of ensuring that agencies work together properly for the benefit of those children and families who need adoption support. 
 The clause underpins the commitment that children and others who request an assessment have a right to one. Subsection (9) says that when it appears to the local authority as a result of an assessment that there is a need for health or education services, the local authority is placed under a duty to notify the appropriate ''Health authority, Primary Care Trust or local education authority'' of that need. 
 In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), I can say that the coverage of health authorities deals with the issue that he raised in relation to Wales. In consequence of changes made by the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill, we shall make any consequential changes in subordinate legislation to the Bill that we are discussing. I assure him that his constituents and those of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy will have that coverage.

Kevin Brennan: I am reassured by what the Minister says, but will she clarify whether the current position should be reflected in the Bill in relation to subsection (9), in that there are no primary care trusts in Wales? There are local health groups, which are similar but not identical to primary care trusts in England.

Jacqui Smith: I shall certainly reflect on that. The intention is clearly that the local authority's duty is to notify the appropriate health body to ensure that it can provide the necessary support in relation to post-adoption support.
 The requirement to notify the appropriate health authority, primary care trust or local education authority of the need is new in the Bill, and represents an important improvement. I hope that that partly responds to the point made by the hon. Member for Huntingdon about the difference between the current and the new situation. What should happen once that notification is made? The health authority, the primary care trust and the local education authority will have to determine whether to provide services in accordance with their statutory obligations. That means that they must provide services to anyone affected by adoption who is entitled to them under the statutory framework under which they operate. 
 The alternative is that the Bill would cut across the statutory frameworks for all the other bodies that might provide adoption support. I am not sure that that would be appropriate given the statutory frameworks for health and education provision, which I shall discuss in more detail later.

Julian Brazier: As usual, the Minister is courteous in giving way. Surely, she has touched on the issue. We are talking about a group that disproportionately needs particular services but is disproportionately disadvantaged in obtaining them for the reasons that were so eloquently described during our hearings. That is exactly why we must cut across the statutory frameworks. I gave the parallel example of the service families working group, which does just that. However, it has no legislative teeth and has failed to achieve much. That is why we are arguing for legislative teeth.

Jacqui Smith: I suspect, from my experience with the initiative on service families children, that we are putting in place a similar process in the Bill. The most important point is that we bring to the attention of agencies and authorities the nature of the support that is needed and facilitate their provision of the relevant assessments and support. The next most important point is that we bring to the attention of health and education bodies the particular needs of children who need adoption support. That is why the Government will issue guidance and directions to health authorities, primary care trusts and local education authorities to ensure joined-up planning and the provision of adoption support services across the various public services. In other words, we shall explicitly bring the needs of children and adoptive families to the attention of authorities.

Jonathan Djanogly: Would it not be helpful to discuss how we can change the overall framework to avoid the conflicts that happened in the past? Will the Minister elaborate on how the guidelines will change the structure to facilitate the process?

Jacqui Smith: I shall come to that later, when we deal with education and other issues.
 The guidance will spell out the particular needs of children and families that need adoption support. Furthermore, the national adoption standards—I refer hon. Members to standard E1—state that councils will plan and deliver adoption services with local health and education bodies. Once again, the use of guidance and directions will help to deliver that standard. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre made a plea for wider reform and for joined-up work on children's services, and I have significant sympathy with that. The Government have made progress on those issues and will continue to do so in, for example, the work that we are starting on the children's national service framework. That framework explicitly includes social services and will examine how we ensure that health and social services are better organised. Directions under the quality protects programme place significant emphasis on working corporately across the organisation and with other partners, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre rightly said. 
 The flexibilities possible since enactment of the Health Act 1999 also enable much better joint working when appropriate for children's services in health and social services. If my hon. Friend is saying that we need to do more in order to ensure that services are joined up, I would agree with him, but I point him to those areas where the Government are making some progress.

Henry Bellingham: The Minister said that it will be important to bring the needs of adopted children to the attention of local health and education authorities, but where is the sanction or the stick for social services to ensure that those other bodies deliver the services? She must address that point.

Jacqui Smith: I was going to return to that, but the sanctions, the sticks and the monitoring rest with the statutory frameworks that surround the provision of those services, as well as through the requirements that we shall make in guidance and directions.
 I was moving briefly to subsections (10) and (11), which ensure appropriate co-operation between local authorities in the exercise of their functions in relation to assessments of need for adoption support services and the provision of any services following such assessments. We discussed this morning the way in which we could ensure that as children moved between local authorities, the criteria were such as to ensure that they received the necessary support, and I do not intend to rehearse that again. 
 Amendments No. 73, 172 and 145 would place a duty on health bodies and local education authorities, following receipt of a notification from a local social services authority under subsection (9), to provide adoption support services in line with the statutory services that they have assessed a person as needing. For reasons that we rehearsed this morning, the Government do not believe that that is appropriate. As I explained, NHS bodies and education authorities will need to determine whether to provide adoption support services in line with the statutory frameworks within which they operate. That means that when people affected by adoption are entitled to receive services under those frameworks, those services must be provided. 
 For example, it is clearly appropriate that if a child has special needs—the hon. Member for Canterbury was right that looked-after children tend to have a higher need for SEN provision—the statutory requirements under education legislation that ensure that an appropriate education assessment be carried out. Similarly, if a child has a need for mental health services, it is right that the mental health professional should carry out that assessment under that framework. Of course, the additional element will be that adoption will be dealt with in guidance, and directions on the carrying out of the assessment will have been brought to the attention of those professionals. 
 I shall give a practical example. Last week, a conference was held to help practitioners to consider how they implement the national adoption standards. At one useful session, officials from the Department for Education and Skills spoke specifically about the educational needs of children who would need adoption support services. The important guidance that has already been issued on the education of looked-after children, to see whether some elements, such as the designated teacher, could be appropriately used to support children going through the adoption process. That is a good example of how the different frameworks can be used to work together effectively for the benefit of children.

Julian Brazier: The Minister has clearly and lucidly illustrated the heart of the problem with her example. She will know from her surgeries that local education authorities are under pressure, as anyone funded from public resources is, and that there are long waiting lists for people with special needs. Parents find that extremely stressful, as is inevitable, as they fight for their child to go further up the queue. The difference between the adoptive and the natural parent is that, whereas the natural parent has to fight only one battle, to get a special needs assessment for the child, for the adoptive parent, that battle is in addition to all the other struggles involved in looking after what are often very damaged children. That is why we believe that there should be statutory support for such children, rather than guidance and guidelines.

Jacqui Smith: That is precisely the sort of role that should be fulfilled by the key worker, as we discussed this morning, to support parents. It is also why the particular needs of adopted children will be brought to the attention of education and health providers so that they can be reflected in the assessment, although the assessment must continue to be conducted within the statutory frameworks.
 Amendments Nos. 144 and 183 relate to subsection (11). The amendments are not appropriate. It is not reasonable or practical to oblige a local authority to comply with any request for help, where that request may not be compatible with its statutory duties and obligations under the relevant legislation. However, as I have already said, the Bill provides that the local authority must comply with the request where it is consistent with the exercise of its functions. That follows the approach taken in section 27 of the Children Act 1989. 
 With those detailed responses to hon. Members' concerns about an issue on which we all share the objective of ensuring that agencies work together to provide support for children and adoptive families, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Henry Bellingham: I am not happy with the Minister's response. We are trying to work out what is in the best interests of the child and we must ensure that services are properly co-ordinated. She talked about the statutory frameworks within which health authorities and education authorities operate, but I do not see how incorporating one of the three amendments would do anything other than complement that framework. I would like to press amendment No. 172 to a vote, but withdraw amendments Nos. 73 and 145, and then vote on amendment No. 183.

Marion Roe: Let me explain. Before the Committee is amendment No. 73, with which we are considering the other amendments. Only the hon. Member who moved amendment No. 73 has the right to withdraw it. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to vote on the amendment to which he spoke, he must declare that now, and I will arrange it when we have dealt with amendment No. 73. The same would apply if the hon. Member for Romsey wanted to press her amendment to a vote. Mr. Bellingham, what do you want to do?

Henry Bellingham: I would like to press amendment No. 183 to a vote.

Marion Roe: I will allow a vote to be taken on that amendment when we reach it.

Jonathan Djanogly: Following your guidance, Mrs. Roe. I believe that, following your thought process, I am responsible for amendments Nos. 73, 145 and 144.

Marion Roe: Only amendment No. 73.

Jonathan Djanogly: My apologies, Mrs. Roe.
 My opinion is that the matter should be put to the vote. We all agree on the same things, on a superficial level. We want more joined-up thinking and we want bodies increasingly to work together, as the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre said so eloquently. 
 How is the additional joined-up working to be carried out in practice, in terms of the nitty-gritty? My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk gave a good example of non-joined-up working in unfortunate circumstances. I am sure that all of us could give similar examples from our own constituencies. We want to know how the system proposed under the Bill will work. The problem is that there have been too many examples of working that is not joined-up. The Opposition do not find it acceptable simply to assume that everything will fall into place once the Bill has been implemented. The existing arrangements need to be reviewed. 
 The hon. Member for Cardiff, West mentioned PCTs in the context of the difference between England and Wales. The other side to his point is that PCTs are new organisations in England as well. We therefore need to think about what operational mechanisms should be put in place to cater for this new kind of organisation. That is not to say, however, that the mechanisms in place for existing bodies are acceptable. 
 The Minister made it clear that the purpose of the clause is to ensure joint working, but I am still not sure that it does that. It merely gives a statement of intent, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury pointed out, when he described it as having no statutory teeth. That is what it comes down to. Nothing in the clause will actually make joint working work, and we already know that it often does not. 
 Subsection (9) provides for the notification of bodies of the need to work together, but that is not enough. The Minister said that it was an improvement on what we had. That may be the case, but if the effect of the clause is to highlight the need without providing for delivery, its unfortunate impact could be to make things worse by merely drawing fresh attention to the deficiencies of the system. That is not a recipe for delivery. 
 I disagreed with the Minister about not wanting to cut across various pieces of legislation. One of our problems is the number of disparate bits of legislation. Why can we not use the Bill to review all those bits of legislation and find out how to put in place a system that will address the matter? I am not saying that that would be easy, but we should face up to it in order to get things right. We should put in place a system that crosses the various disciplines. 
 The Minister was asked to flesh out the proposals, and I do not think that she did so. She mentioned a doctors' conference, which was a good example of consultation. However, it was not a good enough example of the massive levels of consultation that would be required to get the new structure up and running to our general satisfaction. I feel that the Government have not yet given the issue the thought that will be required in terms of the nitty-gritty. She says that the Government recognise that more joined-up thinking is necessary, but how do we go about that? I suggest that much more consultation is needed. 
 The sticks that exist in various legislation, or that the Minister said existed, to prevent non-delivery, may be well and good. However, we know that the system does not work to the desirable standard. Therefore, even if those sticks do exist, there are either not enough of them or they are in so many different pieces of legislation that no one knows where to look for them. Why cannot we address them in the Bill? 
 The Minister said that the amendments were inappropriate, but she did not say why.

Jacqui Smith: I did.

Jonathan Djanogly: I disagree, because we have been discussing frameworks rather than detail. We must improve the current system, not accept it as a given. I would like cross-provisions to be written into the Bill.
 The Minister backed up her argument by referring to future guidance, but she did not say what that guidance would be or when it would be put in place.

Jacqui Smith: Previously, the hon. Gentleman said, rightly, that much work had to be done and many people consulted to get the details right. He now criticises me for saying that we need to consult many people to get the details right. Is that not a contradiction?

Jonathan Djanogly: I do not think so. I recognised the Minister's example of consultation, but noted that that was not adequate in the circumstances. Much more consultation should be done to put some meat on the bones of the provisions.
 The Minister referred to the role of the lead social worker. That is fine and a good idea, but we felt that that had been said rather on the hoof and that not much thought had gone into the practicalities of how to authorise that in practice. 
 For all those reasons, the clause seems to be losing sight of where we want to go, so I do not want to withdraw the amendment. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 183, in page 5, line 23, leave out from 'request' to end of line 24.—[Mr. Bellingham.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Tim Loughton: I crave your indulgence a little, Mrs. Roe, as I want to raise an odd technical point on the clause. We have considered the clause extensively through the large number of amendments that we have debated, mostly this morning. There are many provisions, however, especially in subsection (7), that will be covered by regulations, and sight of those regulations is a long way off.
 Under subsection (7)(f) and (g), local authorities can charge for various support services provided to other bodies. Paragraph (g) refers to 
''the recovery of any financial support provided by a local authority''.
 So far as I can recall, we have not talked about charging fees. My understanding of the references to the regulations is that local authorities will have the power to charge fees for support services provided. That raises questions about what will be provided free to adoptive families that require support, and about the relationship between local authorities that send adopted children outside their jurisdiction and may pay fees to bodies in the other area, such as the new local authority and other support service organisations. It is not clear how that arrangement will work. Will the Minister touch on the basis of fee charging by a local authority, within its area or outside it?

Julian Brazier: Before the Minister responds, I would like to make a query. In terms of the local authority's bureaucratic mismanagement, the worst constituency case that I have ever handled resulted in a court action that was eventually settled out of court. None the less, it seems to fit in with the sort of question asked by my hon. Friend. I would be grateful for the Minister's response on fees in relation to it.
 A couple wanted to adopt from care a young girl who had been severely abused. The adoption was a success, but an older sibling threatened to commit suicide if she was not adopted too, which is not an untypical reaction. Eventually, the parents reluctantly agreed, although they suspected that the poor girl was beyond their help. After a couple of brave years struggling, the sibling was taken back into care again because the adoption had failed. The younger sister continued to thrive in the adoption placement. 
 As the result of the then law, the local authority sued my constituents and billed them for taking the child back into care, because the adoption had gone through by that stage. I see the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre nodding—it is clear how the law works. The child was their child, the family were not wealthy, but both parents were in work so they had a reasonable income, and they were sued for an enormous weekly bill for taking their adopted child back into care. It is beyond my ability to find a way of tabling an amendment to any part of the Bill to deal with that, but I thought that this might be an appropriate time to raise the case.

Jonathan R Shaw: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that, under the Children Act 1989, local authorities do indeed have the power to recover costs when children are taken into care?

Julian Brazier: Yes, I do, and I believe that it is fair and reasonable that they should be able to do so. I am not opposing the state of the law in general. I am just saying that it seems completely unreasonable that that path should be extended to a child who has been in care and whom my constituents, again from a London authority, had taken the risk of adopting. I was making a narrow point. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the law is appropriate in most cases.

Jacqui Smith: We have covered the major points, but I shall respond to the questions raised by Opposition Members.
 The point raised by the hon. Member for Canterbury has been dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford. On the point about charging for adoption support services, the intention behind the clause has been misinterpreted. Local authorities will not charge fees for adoption support services. There was some debate last week about fees for intercountry assessment, which is a different issue. There is a power to make regulations in clause 4(7)(i) regarding expenses to be paid between local authorities or agencies, but it does not include the power to charge individuals. Local authorities cannot charge in respect of the provision of services unless a statutory power enables them to do so, and the Bill provides for no such statutory power.

Julian Brazier: The Minister has been in such command of her brief that I wonder whether she misheard my point while she was looking at her papers, because far from answering my point, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford raised something with which I agree.
 The Children Act 1989 reiterated an existing power—a power that may go back further than that Act—which the hon. Gentleman and I support, for parents to be billed for the cost or part of the cost of their children being taken into care, if they have the funds to pay. I am sure that all hon. Members would support that. My narrow point focused on the misapplication of that legal power, which is possible in existing law, to a case where the child had been in care for many years, had been adopted and the adoption had then failed.

Jacqui Smith: That certainly sounds like an unsatisfactory situation, although I believe that the hon. Gentleman understands the legislative process under which that happened. One of the reasons why families find themselves in that situation is that they have been given inadequate adoption support, and our debates on improvements to adoption support services are important in that respect. However, we are currently discussing whether a local authority should be able to charge for adoption support services, and I made my case clear in response to a question asked by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham.
 If the hon. Member for Canterbury wants me to pursue the particular case that he raised, I shall be happy to write to him.

Julian Brazier: I would be most grateful for that. I had intended to try to get assistance in drafting a new clause for us to tackle at the end of our consideration of the Bill. However, if the Minister felt able to do something in that area before we reach that stage, drawing on her much greater resources, I would be intensely grateful.

Tim Loughton: The Minister did not answer my second point. I entirely take her point about its not being the intention to charge fees to individuals. I am querying the charging of fees by other local authorities providing services. Where such services do not come up to scratch, the adoptive child has to be taken back into care by the original placing authority. Where the placing authority has paid out a grant to an adoptive family in another local authority area to make alterations to a house or provide a vehicle, and the adoption fails, what happens to the money expended? It is not made clear how that would work.
 If a local authority provides services to an adopted child placed in its area at the expense of another authority, such as a London placement in a Kent authority, what is the form for those services being provided at more than cost? Are such local authorities able to provide those services on a commercial basis, particularly in view of the Secretary of State's recent announcement about commercial activities being provided by local authorities? 
 A local authority in Kent might play host to a child with complex difficulties who has been placed by an authority in London. The London authority pays money to the Kent authority for the provision of speech therapy services, special educational needs services and additional counselling. I understand that that authority, under the changes in the law, can now provide those services at a profit. The relationship becomes commercial. 
 However, what happens if the services provided are found to be wanting and not up to scratch and the placing authority in London has to repatriate that child, having spent a lot of money? Under the existing arrangement, it is simply a question of how the London authority might reclaim its outlay, which is deemed a failed investment. However, under the new arrangements there is a commercial liability as well, is there not? 
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming—

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham asked about the funding implications where an authority pays fees in relation to adoption support arrangements for a child who is placed with it but who must subsequently return to the placing authority because there is a problem. On another clause, we shall consider an amendment that deals with fees, including inter-agency fees, which involve authorities making payments in relation to the recruitment of adopters in alternative authorities. The consultation that followed the White Paper referred to inter-agency fees, about which there has been some concern. Nevertheless, the response to the consultation was such that most people felt that the system should continue, while recognising that it might be necessary to reconsider the guidance provided to local authorities about their financing system in order to ensure that perverse incentives were not built into the system.
 I return to the issue of adoption support payments. When a child is placed with an adoptive family living in a different local authority area, it is important that it should be clear where the responsibility for providing adoption support services lies. We shall make regulations, as we said earlier, under subsection (7)(h), setting out a clear system that will apply in such circumstances. We shall consult stakeholders on the regulations in order to ensure that the detail is right. It will be vital to ensure that the new system is supported by appropriate funding arrangements. We shall therefore make regulations under subsection (7)(i) to set out the circumstances in which one local authority may recover from another the expenses of providing adoption support services. The regulations will ensure that the local authority's duties in cases such as those mentioned by the hon. Gentleman are clarified. 
 This is a complex area, on which there are many views. We need to work with the Association of Directors of Social Services, the Local Government Association and other stakeholders. It is important to get the details right, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall consult widely on the regulations in order to do so. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Local authority plans for adoption services

Henry Bellingham: I beg to move amendment No. 185, in page 5, line 34, leave out subsection (4).
 With the forbearance of the Committee I should like to look at the purpose of the clause. It places a duty on local authorities to prepare and publish plans for the provision of adoption services in their areas. Regulations will prescribe the information that the plans have to contain. I am surprised that we are not to be told in detail what those regulations are. As we have discussed time and again, there is in the Bill mention of regulations, but we do not know what those regulations are. That is a weakness in the Bill, and I ask the Minister to comment specifically on what she believes the regulations will prescribe, what form they will take, how detailed they will be and other appropriate information. 
 The Minister in question is enabled to direct the form, and the manner in which and the time at which the plan is published by the local authority. That is fine—we are all in favour of that. The local authority can be directed by the Minister to consult—we are happy with that too. However, under subsection (4)(a) the Minister can 
''direct that a plan is to be included in another document specified in the direction''.
 That could be a more general plan for the provision of services relating to children within the local authority. I do not think that it is on for the specific adoption plan to be included in such a general plan. We need clarity, accountability and clear lines of communication that will enable other bodies to intervene or to become involved if there is an appropriate interface for them, as well as an easily understood framework with some flexibility. 
 That is why my point is simple and straightforward. We want a specific plan that is quite tightly drafted, focused and fairly precise. It should make it crystal clear that it concentrates specifically on adoption services, not on other child-orientated services. That is why the amendment, too, is simple and straightforward. We must remove subsection (4), which gives the Minister the legal power to direct that the plan that we all want the authorities to adopt can be included in another document. That makes no sense whatever. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will agree that we need something much more specific that will lead to a local authority plan that delivers the adoption services that we all badly want for the benefit of children.

Jacqui Smith: Clause 5 is intended to tackle concerns about the planning and management of local authority adoption services. It requires every local authority to prepare and publish a plan for the provision of the adoption services in its area. The detailed requirements that we envisage being in the plan will be set out in regulations and will include providing information about on-going and future work on issues such as recruitment and the assessment of prospective adopters, preparing and placing children for adoption, assessing needs for adoption support, and the provision of adoption support services. Local authorities will be required to review their adoption service plans regularly. In contrast to their services for looked-after children and children in need, there is no specific statutory duty on local authorities to plan their adoption services, even though guidance encourages them to do so.
 The hon. Gentleman rightly spent a lot of time arguing for services to be more joined up and integrated, so I find it strange that he is now saying that a statutory requirement to include an adoption plan in, for example, the children's services plan is a bad idea. It is completely appropriate to consider putting the adoption services plan alongside the authority's other work. Wherever possible, the plan will be delivered as part of existing or future planning mechanisms for children's services. As I suggested, we expect local authorities to discharge their new statutory obligation to plan their adoption services by including the plan in their statutory Children Act children's services plans. 
 The amendment would remove subsection (4) and prevent the appropriate Minister from directing local authorities to include their adoption services plan in another document. That means that authorities would need to produce a separate plan for their adoption services rather than including it in their children's services plan. That would place a new, unnecessary burden on local authorities. It would not mean that the plan was not produced, but simply that it would have to be produced in a less appropriate manner than if it were included in a children's service plan in a joined-up way. 
 The amendment would also prevent the appropriate Minister from giving local authorities directions in order to modify requirements in the regulations with regard to the content of the plans. It would mean, for example, that the appropriate Minister could not use directions to ensure the production of a tailored plan by individual local authorities or groups of local authorities, such as those involved in consortium arrangements, which, as hon. Members have suggested, is the way that we hope authorities will go. 
 In the light of that explanation of the purpose of subsection (4) and of the damage that the amendment would do, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to the Minister for her cogent explanation. I intend to seek leave to withdraw the amendment, but I seek one further piece of clarification first. Local authorities will be preparing adoption services plans, and the explanatory notes say that the appropriate Minister may give a direction, which implies that that would be the exception rather than the rule. The Minister's response to my amendment implied that the plan would normally be included within a wider framework for children's services. I do not necessarily have a difficulty with that, but we surely need a precise focus on adoption services. If she can convince the Committee that that focus will be included in the wider framework for children's services, that will be okay. Why, however, do the explanatory notes imply that her suggested outcome will be the exception rather than the rule?

Jacqui Smith: It would not be appropriate to set out in the Bill the broader framework within which the plan should be made, because planning requirements should, and almost certainly will, change. It is, therefore, appropriate to retain flexibility. In the last part of my response to the amendment, I also noted that it may be appropriate to tailor the plan differently in different circumstances—for example, where a local authority works in a consortium or where there is a need to accentuate what it includes in its plan because of concerns about its provision of services.

Henry Bellingham: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Jonathan Djanogly: I should like to speak about the general use of plans. I am not saying that there will be no use for the adoption services plan. To be fair, the Minister mentioned the items that would go into it, although the language was technical, and I admit that I did not understand most of the issues that she raised. That is an admission of my lack of knowledge of the technical language, rather than a mistake on the Government's part. That said, I am not agreeing that what it is proposed to include in the plan will be correct or will work. That will have to be carefully reviewed.
 The provisions may help to foster a joined-up thinking approach, but not necessarily. I say that because I have seen many of the plans that the Government have brought into play in local authorities, and councillors are sick to the teeth of them. Many such plans serve no purpose whatever, other than to involve officers and councillors in constant tail-chasing exercises that waste a lot of time and do little to deliver services to the people whom the council is meant to serve. On top of that, preparing the plans in practice is expensive, and they cost money to review. They then go to the Government, who have their tuppenceworth, and more costs are incurred. The impact of putting together the plans, particularly on smaller authorities, can often be out of all proportion to their impact on services. 
 I am not saying that we should vote against the clause in its entirety, but there is a long way to go before it is generally accepted that the plans will serve the purpose that the Minister discussed.

Tim Loughton: I shall not stray into the territory of cunning plans, to which my hon. Friends alluded, although I entirely concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon about the excessive amount of prescription and bureaucracy being placed on local authorities. Only yesterday, I attended a social services conference where a senior director of social services of a shire county revealed that, during the past year, he had received no less than 12 inspections. To cap it all, he has now been approached by a senior official from the Department of Health asking him to co-operate in a study of the number of inspections being carried out by departmental inspectors. It seems to have gone out of control.

Jonathan Djanogly: It is also important to mention that the Government have now put in place a plan of plans. Through amendment No. 185, we were discussing whether a plan could be put into another plan. In practice, however, the various council departments settle their plans, and then they have to plan to encompass all the other plans.

Tim Loughton: It is mind-boggling, and I am sure that it does not achieve anything. It certainly does not lead to the better services that we want to be provided for children involved in adoption, which is the point of our deliberations.
 I was surprised that in her recent references to clause 5 and earlier clauses, the Minister did not mention the influence that public service agreements have on adoption services; nor did she tell us of the progress of beacon status. Of the 20 pilot authorities involved in PSAs, eight are involved in setting more stretching adoption targets. How will the terms of clause 5 interact with that? How many of the other 130 local authorities will include adoption targets in their PSAs when the pilot scheme is extended to all local authorities? Can we have more details on the progress of beacon status? I gather that, by September, 12 councils had applied for beacon status for adoption schemes. However, in April 2002, along with everything else that will happening next spring, including all the regulations that will be pouring out of the Department, the Minister anticipates announcing the likely qualifiers. 
 How many more authorities will apply for beacon status under the adoption scheme? Only a relatively small number seem to include adoption services as part of a PSA or beacon status. That means either that they think they are greatly under-resourced and not in a position to achieve such high standards or that they are not as well advanced as they need to be to cope with the extra duties and responsibilities that will be imposed under the Bill. The Government seem keen to push PSAs and beacon status. Will the Minister update the Committee on the progress on those two schemes as regards adoption services?

Jacqui Smith: Although we have already covered the major issues raised by clause 5, hon. Members asked some specific questions about plans. First, the clause ensures that there will be a statutory duty to prepare a plan for adoption services, which will ensure accountability in that service. However, recognising that the planning needs to be coherent, it would be most appropriate for that provision to be included in the overall planning of children's services. In this case, too, the Government are making progress on reducing the number of plans. All current planning requirements have a clear policy intention behind them, often associated with grant regimes. However, we are actively seeking ways of reducing the burden on local authorities. Part of the remit of the children and young people's unit is to simplify the planning requirements affecting children.
 On the subject of local PSAs, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is right. Many local authorities have chosen to push adoption targets into their local public service agreements, which enable local authorities to free themselves from restrictions and requirements by stretching their adoption targets. On the subject of beacon status, I shall write to him and to other members of the Committee with the details of the Government's beacon council programme and the extent to which that supports us in the work to share best practice between local authorities, to improve adoption services and increase the number of children adopted from care. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 - Arrangements on cancellation of registration

Henry Bellingham: I beg to move amendment No. 188, in page 6, line 19, at end add
'and the relevant body will be under an obligation to at all times retain full records.'.
 The clause points out that, by virtue of the cancellation of its registration under part 2 of the Care Standards Act 2000, 
''a body has ceased to be a registered adoption society'',
 and that 
''the appropriate Minister may direct the body to make such arrangements as to the transfer of its functions relating to children and other transitional matters as seem to him expedient.''
 That makes sense, but I am concerned about the retention of records. The relevant body may be wound up or may disappear and the records may be lost, when they should be retained and passed on to the successor body. 
 The amendment would make it crystal clear that records must be retained. If they are not, it could cause problems for the successor body. The amendment is simple and straightforward and I hope that the Minister will accept it.

Jacqui Smith: As the hon. Gentleman said, the clause enables the appropriate Minister to issue directions to the voluntary adoption agency that require it to make appropriate arrangements for the transfer of its functions relating to children. Those directions will ensure that the voluntary adoption agency's records are transferred to another adoption agency and that an appropriate continuity of service provision is preserved for those receiving services from the agency before it ceases to be registered.
 This clause is linked to clause 7, under whose provisions the appropriate Minister may direct the relevant local authority to take action when a voluntary adoption agency is inactive, defunct or has ceased to be registered. Directions may be used to require the local authority to take over the voluntary adoption agency's records. 
 The amendment is unnecessary, therefore, and problematic in that it would place an obligation on 
''the relevant body . . . to . . . retain full records.''
 It does not make it clear what the relevant body may be. On the basis that it is flawed and that the points made by the hon. Gentleman are covered, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Henry Bellingham: Will the Minister give more detail? She says that the question of records is covered, but will it be covered in the regulations, as it does not seem to be covered in the Bill? The records will obviously be kept by the successor body, but will she make clear the mechanism for ensuring that those records are maintained and kept intact?

Jacqui Smith: I think that it is clear in the Bill. I outlined that directions would make explicit the responsibilities in relation to clauses 6 and 7, and gave the hon. Gentleman the assurances that he sought.

Henry Bellingham: With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 - Inactive or defunct adoption societies etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Tim Loughton: There are no amendments to the clause but the clause does contain some vague passages. Subsection (1) says:
''This section applies where it appears to the appropriate Minister that—
(a) a body which is or has been a registered adoption society is inactive or defunct''.
 It goes on, in paragraph (b), to refer to a body that has had its registration cancelled under part 2 of the Care Standards Act 2000, which is a positive act that one can determine. However, I am not clear how it would appear to a Minister—to use the terminology of the Bill—that a body was ''inactive or defunct''. Will the Minister give some examples of when that might appear to be the case, if she were the appropriate Minister?

Jacqui Smith: It is important that we have the safeguard that ensures that the records and activities of an adoption agency that goes out of business can, if necessary, be transferred to a local authority.
 I think that it would be fairly obvious if an adoption agency ceased to operate, and therefore came under subsection (1)(a). It would be drawn to the attention of local authorities, which could draw it to the Minister's attention, or it might be drawn directly to the attention of the Department. It might come to the Department's attention through its responsibilities for registering adoption agencies. There are a range of ways in which that might happen.

Jonathan Djanogly: Although I appreciate what the Minister says, something that has gone wrong in the past when agencies have closed down is that records have been lost. Has she considered how that will be put right in future?

Jacqui Smith: We have not only considered it but ensured that it does not happen, by placing clauses 6 and 7 in the Bill and appropriate regulation-making powers later. The hon. Gentleman is right in his concerns, which is why it is important that clause 7 ensures, if necessary, that those responsibilities can be passed to a local authority.
 I shall conclude my list of the various ways in which the body's state might come to the Minister's attention. It could be brought to the Department's attention through inspections, which would cover voluntary adoption agencies and local authorities.

Tim Loughton: I take the Minister's point, but she has not sealed all the hatches. A wide range of adoption agencies exists: some of them are big, some are small and some are specialist, dealing with a small number of children for overseas adoptions for some communities in this country. She said that the local authority or another adoption agency might notify the Department, but she should take into account the friction that exists between some people in the adoption world. It might suit some people's book that a particular adoption agency no longer continued in practice. We need a keener definition of ''inactive or defunct''.
 The Minister failed to tell us what would happen if a Minister decided that it appeared to him or her that an agency was ''inactive or defunct'' and that agency reared its head and said, ''No, we are not inactive or defunct.'' If the Minister had taken measures determining that it was inactive or defunct, what recourse to appeal would there be and how would it work? Again, we are not dealing with mainstream cases. However, owing to the nature of the subject, I can envisage cases in which specialist adoption agencies in particular found shutters being closed on them as they went about their normal business. It does not mean that they are defunct or inactive merely because they have not fulfilled such a high quota of adoptions in a certain period. 
 The Minister may not be able to give me a full response, but the problem needs consideration. There should be a clear right of appeal for an agency when Ministers deem it appropriate that it be subject to such an order.

Jacqui Smith: Clearly, the Department does not want to whisk business away from adoption agencies that function appropriately. In most cases in which a voluntary adoption agency or other adoption agency ceased operation, there would be a quite sensible process of transferring functions to another adoption agency. The provisions are safeguards for cases in which that does not happen.
 It is not possible for voluntary adoption agencies to operate without some recognition of their existence, as they are inspected and approved by the social services inspectorate. From April 2003, they will inspected and regulated by the National Care Standards Commission in England and the National Assembly in Wales under part II of the Care Standards Act 2000. We can therefore be confident that they will be drawn appropriately to Ministers' attention, and any necessary safeguarding action will be taken. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 - Adoption support agencies

Robert Walter: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 7, leave out line 17.
 I suppose that the amendment is probing. The paragraph that I seek to delete contains a catch-all phrase—an Uncle Tom Cobbleigh phrase—that covers anyone else who happens to be thought of at the time. The clause is about adoption support agencies and defines bodies that should not be regarded as such. Subsection (2) lists entirely logical exceptions, although I note from an earlier discussion that paragraph (d), with which we are not especially concerned now, does not include local health groups in Wales alongside health authorities and others. No doubt we shall come to that subject at some other stage. 
 The phrase that I object to is in subsection (2)(f), which reads: 
''any person, or description of persons, excepted by regulations''.
 I thought that the explanatory notes might clarify who those people might be. About the providers in the list, they state that 
''These providers are not to be registered under Part 2 of the Care Standards Act as they are already regulated'',
 and that 
''Subsection (2)(f) provides a power to make regulations to add to this list''.
 We have had no sight of the regulations. We have no idea who the person or persons to be excepted by the regulations might be. If one were making simple law, it might be more logical to state that all the relevant people would be excepted in the regulations, rather than listing people in the clause and then adding anyone else whom we might want on the list under regulations. The drafting of the clause does not specify what we want it to achieve.

Henry Bellingham: Before my hon. Friend moves too far from his point about regulations, will he fill me in on the impact that those regulations will have on the clause? I have been trying to work it out.

Robert Walter: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which highlights the fact that we do not have sight of the regulations, so we have no idea what will provide for the exemptions. The Committee should have guidance on the subject. All that the explanatory notes say is that there will be power to introduce such regulations.
 I object to catch-all phrases in legislation that give Ministers the power to amend the law in a way of which Parliament might not have conceived. I seek guidance as to what is meant by subsection (2)(f).

Elfyn Llwyd: I agree with what the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) said, and I hope that I pronounced his constituency correctly. Regulations and statutory instruments are part of the process of all legislation, but the Bill seems top-heavy in terms of legislating not by the back door, but not by the front.
 If draft regulations exist, will the Minister supply the Committee with them by our next sitting? Time and again, on clause after clause, we hear of draft regulations that will be put together at some time in future for consultation, regardless of whether consultation like that that has recently taken place with members of the public or another form of it. If she did supply us with them, we would have at least an idea of some of the regulations. 
 I appreciate the fact that regulations are pieces of secondary legislation, and understand the legislative process, but I am sure that the Minister's officials will have some draft regulations in mind. If they do, surely it would be good to produce them for the Committee at this stage.

Jacqui Smith: I shall respond to the last point first. The Bill has emerged from a White Paper accompanied by national adoption standards that clearly set down what we want to see. It has been subject to significant scrutiny during its passage through Parliament, including our discussions in the Special Standing Committee. I recognise the concern that regulations that come out of the Bill should be properly consulted on, but we have had this argument before. The suggestion that we should prepare regulations in advance of a piece of legislation that sets the statutory basis for them is largely unworkable and unprecedented.

Elfyn Llwyd: I have been in the House long enough to know that what the Minister says is right. I did not say that letting a Committee see regulations in advance was normal, but that it would be good in this case. The Bill is the second attempt to make such provisions. The Minister lists with great pride the number of consultations that there have been, so there is even less reason for not producing draft regulations.

Jacqui Smith: Regulations are secondary legislation. It is right that they be informed by the scrutiny of primary legislation as it passes through the House. It would be perverse for the Department to be so presumptuous as to determine in advance the likely result of the scrutiny then to be reflected in the regulations.
 Clause 8 amends the Care Standards Act 2000 to make provision for the registration of adoption support agencies under part II of that Act. Later, we may discuss the significance of that. The hon. Member for North Dorset is concerned about the possibility of exemptions to the need to register. The thinking behind the clause is that adoption support providers already regulated through other means, such as approved voluntary adoption agencies, NHS providers and the Registrar-General, will be exempt from the requirement to register as an adoption support agency. That will help to avoid the unnecessary duplication of registration. 
 The providers that are exempt from the requirement to register are listed in subsection (2)(a) to (e). The hon. Gentleman suggested that it might have been better if we had not bothered to list them, but I suspect that we would once again have been criticised for not placing provisions in the Bill. However, it may not be appropriate for other organisations in the future to be registered in the way set out in the Care Standards Act. That is why subsection (2)(f) provides a power to make regulations to add to the list of adoption support providers that are not obliged to register as adoption support agencies. Why are they not listed in the Bill? Had we been able to see into the future and to know which providers would be affected, we would of course have been able to list them.

Robert Walter: Surely, we could amend the Bill when legislation to create another statutory body is passed.

Jacqui Smith: We debate adoption legislation only rarely, and it is right that it should make it clear, as subsection (2) does, that it may not be appropriate to duplicate regulations for other organisations in the future. Had we not included subsection (2)(f), I suspect that we would quite rightly have been asked about future organisations that it might not be appropriate to register.
 Those are the reasons for the clause taking the form that it does. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment to ensure that there is no unnecessary duplication of regulation, with its associated burdens.

Robert Walter: I am not particularly comforted by the Minister's response. I thank the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy for his intervention and for pronouncing the name of my constituency correctly—at least he does not call it Dorset, North, as some do.
 To return to the thrust of the amendment, I am not especially happy with the Minister's response. I understand that the Department of Health probably considers the provision to be a good way of proceeding, for reasons of administrative convenience. The Minister did not share her thoughts on this, and we can only speculate on what those other organisations might be. I fear, however, that one of them might be some form of English regional government, which could be added to the list without reference to the House. 
 Although I am unhappy and dissatisfied with the Minister's answer, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Julian Brazier: I beg to move amendment No. 91, in page 7, line 17, at end insert—
'(g) organisations operated wholly or mainly by adoptive family members.'.
 I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept this modest amendment. I am struggling hard to improve my record on advocacy, and I had thought of getting a makeover, but I could not afford one. However, my barber did the best that he could at lunch-time with such raw material as remains.

Jonathan R Shaw: What did the hon. Gentleman have for lunch?

Julian Brazier: It was instead of lunch.
 All that I seek is an exemption. It is surely so obvious that no one could object. At our hearings during the earlier phase of this Special Standing Committee—unlike the hon. Gentleman, I did not keep statistics—I asked the representatives of one organisation after another whether they thought that small self-help adoption groups should be regulated; and in every case the answer was no. Several people gave similar answers, saying that bodies like theirs needed to be regulated but that families who provide their own self-help adoption services did not. 
 I do not have to tell the Committee—most hon. Members are very knowledgeable about support groups—that whether it is a bereavement group, a group with alcohol problems or a mother and toddler group, bringing people together with a shared experience is an important part of building confidence. Adoption is a parallel. Bringing groups of adoptive parents together is a thoroughly sensible way of helping them through the problems associated with adoption, and many local authorities rightly encourage it. 
 It may be that the Minister will say—let us put our earlier discussions behind us—that the exemption is not necessary because local authorities will, of course, be light-handed in dealing with such groups. It seems to me, however, that an exemption needs to be placed in the Bill, and I shall make one analogy to illustrate why. We are forced to argue by analogy—[Interruption.] I will gladly give way to the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford.

Jonathan R Shaw: I was making a sedentary comment to my hon. Friend.

Julian Brazier: I see.
 As with so much of the Bill, the measures with which we are dealing are essentially frameworks for regulation and do not spell out what should be done. We therefore have to say what could happen and what has happened under parallel or similar legislation. The Children Act 1989 is the most recent and relevant legislation, and we have often referred to it in our debates. When that Act came into force, a string of small playgroups in my constituency were closed by over-zealous social workers. I arrived just in time to save one from closure; I discovered that it was being closed because it had insufficient provision of lavatories. The mathematical equation in the regulations showed that the playgroup had just below the right number. We were quickly able to show that the formula in the Department's guidance for the number of lavatories was not to be interpreted mechanically, and that group was saved. Two other groups, however, had already gone down—[Hon. Members: ''The pan?''] It is 10 minutes to 5 on a Thursday afternoon, and I am delighted to give way to the Minister.

Jacqui Smith: Was the hon. Gentleman flushed with success?

Julian Brazier: I reassure the Minister that, although I have no expertise in that area, I was pleased to be on the front page of my local paper, which associated me with rescuing a playgroup from that lavatorial problem.

Henry Bellingham: Is my hon. Friend aware that, although in Army circles it is appropriate to call such machines lavatories, the law does not recognise that word? In law, they are called toilets.

Julian Brazier: I am reassured. I am learning all the time. I am glad to say that that playgroup is now thriving. I have visited the lavatories in question and they seem adequate for the job.

Elfyn Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman said earlier that he had no expertise. How can he say that they looked adequate?
Mr. Brazier rose—

Marion Roe: Order. It would be helpful if the Committee returned to the amendment.

Julian Brazier: I should mention that the playgroup shared premises with my surgery.
 You are right, Mrs. Roe, to return the debate to the amendment. My point is that legislation that the whole Committee would agree was passed in good faith—after lengthy consideration in Committee, during which hon. Members of all parties made very constructive contributions—has had an unfortunate effect on small groups of the kind I have been discussing. Those groups were not, of course, mother and toddler groups run by parents, but playgroups. We should take care that the Bill, whose principles have strong support on both sides of the House—notwithstanding a few votes on matters of detail—does not produce an unintended consequence. 
 Having had a bit of a laugh about my visits to the barber and a few other things, I remind the Committee that there really is scope for the clause, unless it is amended, to do a lot of damage. Adoption self-help groups are extremely important. Getting groups of people together, typically in the house of someone who is an adopter—the treasurer and secretary, if the group bothers to have a treasurer, are likely to be adopters—is important. Those groups do not need heavy-handed regulation. Surely it is reasonable for them to be exempted from the regulatory framework, however much we support the principle of regulation for more formal and structured adoption groups.

Jacqui Smith: I do not disagree with the sentiments of the hon. Gentleman and I hope that I can reassure him that the amendment is unnecessary. Clause 8(1) makes it clear that an adoption support agency for which there would be a registration requirement is an undertaking. The term ''undertaking'' has the same meaning as in section 121 of the Care Standards Act 2000. It includes any business or profession, whether voluntary or profit making. It does not extend to a self-help group meeting in a person's own home.
 The amendment would insert a new subsection (2)(g) in clause 8, excluding organisations operated wholly or mainly by adoptive family members from the requirement to register, but it is not needed. Informal groups that meet in people's homes will not be classed as adoption support agencies. Those wishing to hold a support group meeting in their own home will not be required to register as an adoption support agency. The Government have no intention of, or interest in, preventing individuals from meeting in their homes in a supportive environment. We would encourage that. I agree that such groups can play an important role.

Tim Loughton: I anticipate that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury may want to ask the same question as mine. The Minister used the phrase ''in their own home''. For an extended group of families it might not be physically possible to meet in one of their homes. They might need to use the village school, community centre or school hall. Would there still be no restriction in that event?

Jacqui Smith: The emphasis that I placed on meeting in a group member's own home did not imply that that was a condition. The important point is that the groups should be informal self-help groups that do not provide counselling or some of the other services that the clause is rightly intended to regulate. There has, of course, been some demand for regulation of such groups.

Sandra Gidley: Many of the groups first came into being through groups of families coming together for mutual support. When does a group cease to be a group of families and become a group that requires registration?

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Lady is right. What starts as a self-help group may develop into a group that offers counselling or other services to others. The point at which a group begins in a substantial way to provide adoption support services to others—this emerged clearly when we took evidence—is the point at which it would come under the auspices of the Bill. It would be a question of fact in each case, but I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he wanted—that groups of adoptive families informally joining together for mutual support, not for the provision of services as I have outlined, would not be subject to the registration requirements.

Julian Brazier: I am delighted with the Minister's assurances. If the amendment is otiose, as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy put it, it can easily be withdrawn. My key question is a follow-up to that asked by the hon. Member for Romsey. In quoting a moment ago from the Care Standards Act 2000 the Minister referred to voluntary organisations—rightly, because a high proportion of organisations that need to be regulated are voluntary. The crucial transition that she described relates to the provision of services. However, an over-bureaucratic, domineering local authority could easily argue, for example, that a self-help group involved counselling. My direct question is: why can we not employ a definition that turns on whether the group is wholly or mainly run by adopters? That would create a clear dividing line.

Jacqui Smith: The details of the registration will be the subject of regulations and national minimum standards at a later stage. However, the hon. Gentleman misunderstands one point. The registration will be undertaken not by some supposedly irrational or unreasonable local authority, but by the completely rational and reasonable National Care Standards Commission.

Julian Brazier: I am grateful for the Minister's clear assurances. I hope that she has covered all the points. I retain a slight uneasiness after my earlier experience, to which, Mrs. Roe, I promise I shall not refer again. However, on the basis of the Minister's categoric assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Tim Loughton: On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. I realise that the time is approaching 5 o'clock, when we may end our deliberations. You may not be aware that, during this morning's discussions under the chairmanship of Mr. Stevenson, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy was placed on record as undertaking to give a bottle of wine—although its location was unspecified—for the best pronunciation of the name of his constituency. Indeed, Mr. Stevenson was heard to express interest in whether he would qualify for such an award. We would not want the Committee's proceedings today to end without allowing the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy to judge who has won that prestigious award.

Kevin Brennan: Further to that point of order, Mrs. Roe. I feel that it would only be fair to other members of the Committee if I disqualified myself from the competition.

Marion Roe: I am sure that hon. Members will be aware that nothing in Standing Orders qualifies me to determine whether the prize should be given, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Cant—[Laughter.]— the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy will determine that himself.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Angela Smith.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Five o'clock till Tuesday 18 December at half-past Ten o'clock.